To All WineCape Tourney Vets

[Sir Uber General]

Huzzah!

Beer and a slap on the back for Kingfish! Followed by more beer

Oh, and I vote #1, random please. I dont like the idea of having subjective review of ones skills to determine which group you will go into. And as newb or less experienced player I am an unknown quantity - I like the idea of being able to have a go at the big boys.

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

And as newb or less experienced player I am an unknown quantity - I like the idea of being able to have a go at the big boys.

I've already voted, but I agree with the above statement. ROW was my first CMBO tourney, as well as my first major PBEM experience.

Of course, 10 years of SL/ASL has helped a bit.

[Strider]

I vote for #1...

[Michael Dorosh]

#4) Don't Give A Rat's Ass, Just Wants To Play Against Dedicated Opponents

No offense intended, but as Mr Spkr pointed out, I am committed to playing, and finishing the tourney, no matter what the outcome.

I really do think CMBB will be sufficiently different from CMBO to help level the playing field, and I do think my grasp of the basics of CMBO (which should also apply to CMBB) has been steadily improving. So no, I don't really care who I play, and whatever the group decides is perfectly acceptable by me. I am not one to quibble after the fact - I may not like the results all the time - but I am prepared to live with them.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Dudes, what on earth is all this fuss about? I am willing to play anyone, anywhere under any conditions. For God's sake, it is JUST a game.

That's what I said, too, but Herr Treeburst insists we vote, so I voted....BTW, I'm very happy with any outcome.

Pleased as I was by CDIC's bowing out so he could beta test for Boots & Tracks (which got me into the tourney) I now must lament my good friend Kingfish's bowing out for the same reason. But all in a very good cause.

[Treeburst155]

Cast Your Vote!!!

1) Random section assignment picked from a hat.

2) Section assignment based on prior performance.

3) All sections seeded (even distribution)

#1) 8 votes

#2) 4 votes

#3) 0

(results as of Strider's vote)

_________________________________________

The Capt,

Your post on lower third of page seven is very interesting. We may just do that.

Redwolf and Wreck,

It sounds like you two guys are the brains behind how an automated system for anonymous play could be done. We'll have to discuss this further.

Treeburst155 out.

[Wreck]

As you might guess... #1.

[MrSpkr]

Hmm. As I prepare to head home for the night, I see the voting pattern.

I still feel very strongly about #2. My concern (and I will elaborate later this evening) still revolves around people dropping out (which IS a concern -- I note that several have said it isn't, but that is now, while the tournament is being formed. If, for example, I draw four of the ubers right off the bat, and start getting my head handed to me in three or four games right off the bat, continuing those matches will be, at best, dull, and at worst, excruciating. If the ubers and some others want to be random, fine -- put all those that want to go random in one group and create brackets for them. Place those of us who do not want that (as it would be nice to have a realistic shot at winning the bracket -- or at least in not going in with the knowledge that you have an extremely difficult bracket while someone else has a walk in the park) in our own brackets.

It is a compromise, but one that I think is doable. Place people who have no preference in either bracket as needed.

I also note with interest that the strongest support for the random still comes from those most likelyl to benefit from it -- the strongest players that would rather have a cakewalk into the playoffs rather than having the same chance to play against people of equivalent skill and having a harder row to hoe.

Also, just to clear any confusion -- I would NOT drop the tournament under the circumstances I describe above. However, knowing me (and I've known me for over 35 years), I will lose most interest in going on if I feel I can't be competitive. I will return turns, but my play will probably be uninspired as I devote my energy to other games.

Also, for those wondering, I am not necessarily happy with my position, either - several of the guys in my group have beaten me like a drum in past games. However, I think it is fairer for me to play them for victory in the bracket than for some people to play opponents well beneath their abilities and experience.

Sorry to be defensive -- its been a long day.

Steve

[Fangorn]

I'll vote for #1.

[Treeburst155]

Cast Your Vote!!!

1) Random section assignment picked from a hat.

2) Section assignment based on prior performance.

3) All sections seeded (even distribution)

#1) 9 votes

#2) 4 votes

#3) 0

(results as of Wreck's vote)

_________________________________________

MrSpkr,

Your reasoning exactly why I originally split the players out according to past performance. I felt the overwhelming majority of players would prefer it that way. That may not be the case however. There are at least five in the lower sections who would like to play the big guns.

In any case, see The_Capt's post on the lower third of page seven. I'm thinking of integrating this idea with the will of the people, which is now being determined by the vote.

Treeburst155 out.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

You know, Michael Dorosh is quite right. CMBB is going to be so different from CMBO that you will all be starting on a level playing field anyway(Experience wise).

This tourney will start approx 1 month after the release of CMBB, not enough time for anyone to master it.

I still love the idea of triple blind, it is quite an original and innovative idea. If you guys want to make comments and remarks to your unknown opponent you still can, the 3rd person can cut and paste your comments in the mail so the personal link can be maintained with your opponent. The only drawback i see is the added time delay, which is unavoidable due to time zones of the players and 3rd party. But patience is a virtue is it not?

For it to work the 3rd parties must be reliable of course.

It is still worth thinking about, it would make this quite a unique tourney IMHO.

CDIC

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

I still love the idea of triple blind, it is quite an original and innovative idea. If you guys want to make comments and remarks to your unknown opponent you still can, the 3rd person can cut and paste your comments in the mail so the personal link can be maintained with your opponent.

For it to work the 3rd parties must be reliable of course.

It is still worth thinking about, it would make this quite a unique tourney IMHO.

CDIC

I had championed the triple blind option during the negotiations for the Onion Wars campaign game, but it got scotched (and rightly so, from a logistical standpoint).

If there are truly enough resources to do this, it would be quite interesting, and be more of a controlled variable...I never liked the banter of the Invitational in one or two cases, when it became abusive or condescending. I don't know if it affected my play - probably not - but it made the game much less fun to play.

[Enoch]

My vote is the same as Michael's, I don't care which way we create the sections. If pressed I'd say I have a slight preference for #1 as I'd like to have a shot at some of the better players.

In regards to the triple blind idea, wouldn't it be possible for each player to simply set up a new email address simply for this tourney: Player27@RoW.com or somefink? Only TB would know the identity of each player and their email address. I would be a bit concerned that if my opponent and I wanted to exchange several turns in an evening we would have to make sure the third party is available at the same time. And what about TCP play, would it still be possible to arrange games this way?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Enoch:

In regards to the triple blind idea, wouldn't it be possible for each player to simply set up a new email address simply for this tourney: Player27@RoW.com or somefink?

That is also something I suggested for the OW saga - and I still think it is a good idea. It would require the moderator to set up several email accounts, but I think Hotmail would be accommodating. The problem is that hotmail sometimes has a problem with unzipped files or ones with large attachments.

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That is also something I suggested for the OW saga - and I still think it is a good idea. It would require the moderator to set up several email accounts, but I think Hotmail would be accommodating. The problem is that hotmail sometimes has a problem with unzipped files or ones with large attachments.

There are plenty of free mail servers that allow you to store a large amount in your mailbox and generally doen't have any problems with attachments or zipped files. However, this is getting way ahead of the game. Unless I am missing something, I think this is a superior solution than having third parties have to handle all the turn files.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

You know, Michael Dorosh is quite right. CMBB is going to be so different from CMBO that you will all be starting on a level playing field anyway(Experience wise).

Why do you say this? Although some significant changes appear to have been made in the game engine, particularly in regards to machine gun effectiveness, a few new orders, etc., it is still basically the same game - just a few new shiny parts thrown in. I think the principles learned in CMBO will be, for the most part, equally effective in CMBB.

Now, with the engine rewrite, I would agree -- that may be a whole new ball of wax.

Steve

[Treeburst155]

Hey, you guys may be on to something here. Everybody gets a Hotmail account with an email address I assign them that won't reveal identity.

Now, Hotmail used to have a 1MB attachement limit last I checked (probably almost two years ago). When a file won't go through because of size (20% of the time?) the sender would be notified by Hotmail. They would then send the mail to me, and I would forward it. This would work fairly well I think. No slowdowns at all except for the occasional turn that is too big for hotmail.

The one problem, and it's a big one, is that players can simply tell each other who they are since the mail is completely private.

EDIT: Players would all have to agree to keep their identities secret. I can think of no way around this. On the plus side, they could chat.

As far as identity not being revealed by the email address is concerned, even AOL people can setup more than one account. I think my ISP allows me up to three.

Enoch, I'll put you down for random seeding since playing the big guns appeals to you.

Treeburst155 out.

[ April 23, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

If increased machine gun effectiveness isn't achieved in CMBB, in the degree required to be truly realistic, which in turn would in itself make CMBB a brand new game - I am throwing my computer in the river.

[Enoch]

Random is fine.

TB,

I would strongly suggest if we decide to use some sort of anonymous email system that it not be hotmail. It isn't always a big deal but I've had some minor frustration in sending turns to people who have hotmail accounts. I'm sure we could find a better free email service. However, we can deal with that when the time comes.

It is true that players could reveal to one another their true identity, but we seem to have a pretty good bunch of people and I think we can trust most with a simple honor code. We did pretty well not revealing the details of the scenerios in RoW to each other.

[Treeburst155]

Cast Your Vote!!!

1) Random section assignment picked from a hat.

2) Section assignment based on prior performance.

3) All sections seeded (even distribution)

#1) 11 votes

#2) 4 votes

#3) 0

(As of Enoch's vote)

______________________________________________

You're right Enoch, the honor system would be good enough I think. Being able to chat is a big plus too. Many people seem to enjoy that aspect of PBEM.

Treeburst155 out.

[von Lucke]

Ermmm, #1. Everybody gets lucky sometime, and CMBB should have sufficient new quirks to throw even long-time CMBO players a curve.

(Just hope I iron the quirks out of my new system by then...).

[Mick_Oz]

Choices, always choices... lol. I wouldn't

lose a moment of sleep over any of the three

options.. they all sound fine. But just to

avoid the appearance of apathy, I'll vote for

random. Number 1 then. I'll die proud.

[edgars]

I vote for #1.

I was thinking about the dropout problem, and figured out one thing: people drop out because they feel they cannot advance further in the tourney beyond their section. But what if we make a relegation round (rounds) using the same scenarios what is used for the playoffs? This way the section winners advance to the real finals, guys who placed second in their sections makes up first relegation section and so on... By using this system we could also determine the overall placement of each player, so players doesn't loose interest in fighting till the very end.

[Ugbash]

#1

[Juha Ahoniemi]

I vote for #1

I fear no Man